New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number:

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District: 27

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Date of Hearing: February 8, 2011

March 28, 2011

May 6, 2011

Actual Record Close Date: August 18, 2011

Hearing Officer: Veronica C. Odom, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED FEBRUARY 8, 2011

Attorney — Student

Parents

CSE-4 District Designee — DOE

Assistant Principal, (via telephone) — DOE

School Psychologist (via telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED MARCH 28, 2011

ESQ., Attorney — Student

Mother — Student

Program Director (via telephone) — Student

Educational Coordinator, (via telephone) — Student

District Representative — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED MAY 6, 2011

Attorney, Educational Coordinator, (via telephone)

Parents

District Representative — DOE

The matter of (hereinafter “the student”) came before me for determination on February 8, 2011, March 28, 2011, and May 6, 2011, in accordance with the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(2), and Article 89 of the Education Act of the State of New York. The hearing was requested by the parents on September 22, 2010. The parties were granted additional time to submit post-hearing memoranda. The compliance date was extended as a result of a request for additional hearing dates and for the submission of briefs. The record closed date is August 18, 2011. Appended to the record are lists of persons in attendance and of documents submitted into evidence.

In an amended due process notice dated, November 18, 2010, the parent through her attorney, allege that the May 26, 2010 Committee on Education (“CSE”) review meeting was not duly constituted; specifically that no there was no teacher member present (Exh. C), and that the CSE team failed to appropriately consider the therapist’s report, and that the Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) fails to accurately describe the student’s education needs. Furthermore, the parents challenge the appropriateness of the CSE’s placement recommendation and request that the Department of Education (“DOE”) provide tuition reimbursement for the 2010-2011 school year, related services, and therapies, and transportation costs.

THE POSITION OF THE PARTIES

The District representative, , maintained that the DOE offered the student a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the 2010-2011 school year and that the IEP goals were appropriate and the offered placement of would have adequately addressed the student’s education needs.

The parents’ attorney, , maintained the DOE failed to offer the student FAPE for the 2010-2011 school year, that the Program at the (hereinafter “ ”) is appropriate, and that the equities favored the parents, and that tuition reimbursement, related services and transportation costs should be ordered.

BACKGROUND

The student is a year old male who had been classified as other health impaired (hereinafter “OHI”) at the IEP review meeting on March 26, 2010(Exh. 5), and recommended related service of therapy (2 X30:1), and and therapy (2 X 30:3). The student is currently placed at The Program at the .

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S CASE

Ms. , the DOE representative placed into the record inter alia, the March 26, 2010 IEP (Exh. 5), the April 18, 2010 and progress report (Exhs. 11). She maintained that the DOE offered the student an appropriate program with appropriate education services.

, assistant principal, , testified that she had spoken to the parent when she visited the school in June, and at that time a class had not be created and the parent came back to the school on September 14th to visit the offered placement (Tr. at 19). She stated that the parent had expressed her concern about the other students’ classifications, and how the school would meet her son’s needs (Tr. at 19).

She testified that the classroom teacher is a certified education teacher, and has been teaching for 8 years (Tr. at 21). She further stated that the classifications of the students in the recommended class were disabled, disturbed, and that one student requires a lot of and has a modification program (Tr. at 23). She described the functioning levels of the students in and math from st -mid grade (Tr. at 24). She stated that the school employs two full-time teachers, a full-time and a part-time therapist, a full-time counselor, and a part-time adaptive education provider (Tr. at 24).

She stated that in the class the students work in groups, and that they use the Core Knowledge program and the Harcourt Math program (Tr. at 25-30). She described a typical day for a student at the school would be breakfast from 7:40-8, 88:37 extended day, 8:40 morning announcements, , writing, 1:50 lunch, math, studies and science, afternoon snack (Tr. at 44-45).

She stated that she believes that is appropriate for the program, and that the specific class recommended would address his , and academic needs (Tr. at 50). She stated that there are many opportunities for the student to be mainstreamed, during math, and literacy (Tr. at 52).

On cross, she acknowledged that the science teacher is not a education teacher, but is a certified science teacher (Tr. at 64). She stated that the student would be in the highest group in the class (Tr. at 66). She further stated that math and are taught during the extended day program (Tr. at 74).

Ms. , school psychologist, testified that she has a Master’s degree in school psychology, and a certificate in school psychology, and has been employed for 7 years (Tr. at 87). She stated that she is currently employed at the CSE 4-District 27, conducting evaluations, classroom observation, assessments, and participates in CSE review meetings, and makes program recommendations (Tr. at 88).

She stated that she participated in the student’s CSE review in May 2010, and that the team had copies of the teacher’s report, an therapy progress report, a and report and a classroom observation report (Tr. at 88). She stated that the parent declined to have a parent member participate in the review meeting, but did that she did not receive the signed declination letter from the parent (Tr. at 107).

She further stated that everyone at the review meeting had an opportunity to participate at the review meeting (Tr. at 94). She further stated the recommendation of a with related services was based on the documents presented at the meeting along with the teachers’ input, and that no one disagreed with the recommendation (Tr. at 95).

She stated that the team considered a general education class or a collaborative team teaching class, but a large classroom setting would not be appropriate for the student (Tr. at 95). She testified that the team developed the academic goals by reviewing the previous IEP goals and deciding whether the goals continue to be appropriate (Tr. at 102). She stated that the math, and writing goals were appropriate and were based on the and progress, and therapy progress reports (Tr. at 102104).

She opined that the recommended placement of a class of a was appropriate for the student (Tr. at 105). On cross, she acknowledged that the review team did not review the last psychological evaluation at the meeting (Tr. at 110). She stated that Mr. participated in the review meeting as district rep, conducted the observation of the student, is a education teacher, but is not currently teaching (Tr. at 114). She acknowledged that the student’s teacher, Ms. , at the , did not participate in the review meeting (Tr. at 118). She stated that she discussed and interpreted the testing results for the team, but did not incorporate the scores into the IEP (Tr. at 138-139).

PARENT’S CASE

The parent’s attorney , presented the following documents, inter alia, a 2010-2011 Program at class schedule, a 2010-2011 tuition contract (Exhs. F, G respectively).

, program director, , testified that is a education program within the Schools, which provides self-contained classes for disabled and disabled children in grades (Tr. at 152). She stated that the student is in a class with six others who are all on a grade level, with classifications of other health impaired, and - impaired, and ranging in age years (Tr. a 155). She stated that one teacher teaches in the morning and another teaches English, and secular studies with a full-time assistant the rest of the day (Tr. at 156). She stated that the students in participate in mainstream activities with the students who attend the general education program at the (Tr. at 157). She further stated that the student receives and therapy at the school which are provided by the School District of location (Tr. at 159).

On cross, she acknowledged that the program may accept students who have been classified as disturbed or multiply handicapped, and erroneously (Tr. at 166). She stated that the maximum number of students in a class is 12 (Tr. at 168). She stated that the classes are formulated based on the students’ age, skill level, academic levels and their other needs (Tr. at 177), with teachers conducting on-going assessments of the students (Tr. at 182).

Alice Feltheimer, educational coordinator, , testified that she worked for the NYC Department of Education for 16 years before coming to work at (Tr. at 189). She stated that she works closely with Ms. planning the school curriculum, meets with teachers to discuss students’ progress, visits classrooms, supervises English teachers among other administrative duties (Tr. at 190).

She stated that after the DOE initially set up annual review meeting she later received notification from the DOE that IEP meetings must be completed by June 1st, but that the teacher was unable to attend because she was teaching at another school (Tr. at 193-194). She stated that the DOE asked the teacher to participate, and was not able to fully participate in writing the IEP goals (Tr. at 194). She further stated that the teacher read from the teacher’s report at the IEP meeting by telephone (Tr. at 194), but was unable to “provide insight” (Tr. at 195). She stated that the DOE did not contact the secular teacher prior to the meeting or after it (Tr. at 195).

She stated that the goals and objectives of the IEP were not discussed at the meeting (Tr. at 196), nor was the content of the goals discussed (Tr. at 208). She opined that the several goals were not appropriate, such as, the goals. She believed that they were “too high” and would “add to [the student’s] frustration level” (Tr. at 198). She further stated that having the student use a picture dictionary is not an appropriate goal because it is not an efficient way to teach vocabulary skills (Tr. at 198-199).

She further stated that no one at participated in the creation of the IEP goals (Tr. at 210). She stated that she did not know who created the related services goals and that they were not discussed at the meeting (Tr. at 211).

She stated that the parent was concerned about the , and wanted to see the class profile and was told by the review team that she would receive a placement letter and would be able to visit the class (Tr. at 212).

She described the student’s class at for the 2010-2011 school year as a student-teacher-assistant ratio, with students classified as other health impaired, - disabled (Tr. at 217). She stated that the students ranged in age from to and were in the second grade (Tr. at 218). She further stated that the student is assessed at the beginning of the school year and the student is grouped with students with similar abilities (Tr. at 223). She stated that the student has issues, and delays, and that the school addresses these issues by allowing the student extra time to verbalize and by “breaking things down into smaller parts” to allow him to process the information (Tr. at 220-221). She stated that the student is easily and requires a lot of structure and routine. She stated that he has a habit of his shirts and requires a change of clothing during the school day (Tr. at 221). She stated that the student needs some group instruction, has weak vocabulary and comprehension skills, not able to write independently and requires a multi-approach to (Tr. at 224). She stated that the student participates in a small group which works with linguistic and phonetic materials (Tr. at 225). She further stated that Program provides a multiapproach with modifications and assessments which comports with the student’s style (Tr. at 229).

She stated that the student’s vocabulary has increased “tremendously” over the course of a year, and he’s beginning to use two-syllable words, and he’s made progress in decoding (Tr. at 230). She stated that the student’s and and needs are addressed with the related service providers who regularly consult with the classroom teacher, and he has shown improvement in both areas (Tr. at 248-250). She stated that the modification plan for the student addresses his - issues as well with a rewards system and she has seen him make progress (Tr. at 254).

She believes that the CSE’s offered placement of a would not be appropriate for student if he is placed with students with problems because he “mimics inappropriate s (Tr. at 256). She stated the student is mainstreamed in science lab, but not or math (Tr. at 257-258).

On cross, she stated that the school follows the NYS curriculum and uses a lot of books from NYS website (Tr. at 275). She stated that Ms. , school psychologist did not discuss the specific goals at the IEP meeting (Tr. at 279-280).

The parent stated that she participated in the May 2010 IEP meeting by telephone. She stated that they discussed her son’s need for a small class with students with similar needs (Tr. at 312). She stated that no one discussed the setting or the types of students that could make up that type of class (Tr. at 312), and she had concerns about the class being too large for her son (Tr. at 314).

She stated that the goals and objectives where not discussed at the IEP meeting (Tr. at 314). She stated that they discussed the student’s possible hearing loss and she was told to have him re-evaluated in six to eight months (Tr. at 315). She also stated that she had the student re-evaluated in December 2010 and provided the CSE with a copy of the report which determined that he had hearing loss in his left ear (Tr. at 315). She stated that she received a notice of placement from the CSE in mid-June 2010, called the recommended school, but it was closed for the summer, and when she called the school she was told that there had not been a class that year (Tr. at 316). She later wrote the CSE rejecting the offered placement (Tr. at 317). She stated that she visited the placement in September, met with the teacher and the assistant principal, who showed her the classroom. She stated that when she asked about the kind of children in the classroom they were unable to tell her because their IEPs had not be reviewed (Tr. at 318).

She stated that the program was not appropriate because she wasn’t provided with a class profile, there were no teachers in the lunchroom at lunchtime, the resource room was too large and recesses during the day were insufficient. She wrote the CSE about her concerns (Tr. at 321).

On cross, she acknowledged that her husband had signed the enrollment contract for the program on August 23rd before she visited the recommended placement in September, but that her mind was still open even though her son had attended since (Tr. at 324-325). She acknowledged that no one at the IEP meeting disagreed with her son’s classification, or the related services that were recommended (Tr. at 332).

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

I find that the Department of Education failed to offer a free appropriate public education for the 2010-2011 school year.

The central purpose of the IDEA is to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education (FAPE) (20 U.S.C. § 1400 [d] [1] [A]; Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S. Ct. 528, 531 [2005]); Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179-181 (1982). A free appropriate public education includes education and related services designed to meet the student’s unique needs, provided in conformity with a comprehensive written Individualized Education Program (IEP) (20 U.S.C. § 1401(9); 20 U.S.C. § 14149(d); 34 C.F.R. § 300.13. A school district offers a student a free appropriate public education when (1) it complies with the procedural requirement of the IDEA and (2) its CSE develops an IEP reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits. Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson S.D. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-207 (1982). The student’s recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE) 920 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 C.F.R. §300.550[b]; 8 NYCRR 200.6[a][1]).

The first step in determining whether tuition reimbursement is appropriate is to determine whether the district offered to provide a FAPE to the student (See Mrs. C. v. Voluntown, 226 F.3d 60, 66 [2 Cir. 2000]).

A FAPE is offered to a student when the Board of Education complied with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA’s procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Bd. of Ed. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-7[1982]). The IDEA also requires that an impartial hearing officer’s decision be made on substantive grounds in determining that the student did or did not receive a FAPE (20 U.S.C. §1415 [f][3][E][i]. School districts are also required to comply with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA (Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F. 3rd 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003]). If a procedural violation is alleged, an impartial hearing officer may find that a student did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies impeded the student’s right to a FAPE, and significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student, or caused a deprivation of educational benefits (20 U.S.C § 1415[f][3][E][iii]; 34 CFR §300.513[a][2], 8 NYCRR 2005 [j][4][ii]. An impartial hearing officer is not precluded from ordering a school district to comply with IDEA procedural requirements (20 U.S.C. § 1415 [f][3][E][iii].

The Second Circuit has determined that a “school district fulfills its substantive obligations under the IDEA if it provides an IEP that is “likely to produce progress, not regression” and it the IEP affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere “trivial advancement”(Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 195 [2d Cir. 2005], quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130, and is likely to provide some “meaningful” benefit (Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. Of Ed., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120[2d Cir. 1997]). The IDEA, does not require school district to develop IEPs that maximize the potential of a student with a disability (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 197).

An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP which reflects the results of evaluations to identity the student’s needs, establishes annual goals related to those needs, and provides for the use of appropriate education services Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-046; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 93-9).

NYCRR 200.4(b)(iv) provides that an initial evaluation must include “an observation of the student’s environment (including the regular classroom setting) or, in the case of a student of less than school age or out of school, an environment appropriate for a student of that age, to document the student’s academic performance and in the areas of difficulty.” A CSE that prepares a student’s IEP must include the student’s parents, a regular education teacher of the student if the student is or may be participating in a regular education environment, a education teacher of the student, a school psychologist, a school district representative who is qualified to provide or supervise education, an individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results, the school physician if requested by the parent in advance of the meeting, and the parent of another child with a disability (Education Law Section 4402[1][b]; 8 N.Y.C.R.R. Section 200.3[a][1].

The IDEA requires that an IEP be developed by a group of individuals including at least one education teacher, or where appropriate, at least one education provider of such student (20 USC §1414[d][1][B][iii]; see, 34 CFR §300321[a]; 8 NYCRR§200.3[a][1][iii].

The parents alleged that the CSE review meeting was not duly constituted in that the teacher from the and the parent member was not present. The CSE was improperly composed and the DOE violated the student’s procedural rights under Article 89 of the Education Law and caused a deprivation of educational benefits. An IEP prepared by an invalidly composed CSE is a nullity. The education teacher from the did not participate in the review meeting nor did the parent member. Although the CSE’s witness stated that the parent declined to have a parent member present, they did not provide written evidence of such.

Notwithstanding that the May 26, 2010 CSE was not properly constituted, I find that the hearing record does not demonstrate that this procedural inadequacy impeded the student’s right to a FAPE or caused a deprivation of educational benefits. In the absence of the education teacher and additional parent member, the record reflects that the CSE was able to sufficiently consider whether the education environment would be appropriate for the student based on an overall identification of the student’s needs and abilities. Therefore, I find that the record contains insufficient evidence to conclude that the failure to include a education teacher and an additional parent member at the May 26, 2010 CSE meeting rose to the level of a denial of FAPE. (See, 20 U.S.C. §1415 [f][3][E][ii]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.513[a][2]. Furthermore, the record supports the parent’s assertion that the IEP goals were not discussed at the meeting.

The annual goals set forth in the May 26, 2010 are not consistent with the student’s identified needs in all area, academic, , , skills, - and and processing skills. The comprehension goal was unrealistic for a child his age and at his level. The goals are inappropriate given the student’s issues.

The CSE failed to offer the student a FAPE in that its recommended program at was not appropriate to meet the student’s education needs. The student would be placed in a class with students who are and impaired and disturbed. The student would not be appropriately placed with students with dissimilar needs with issues. The record establishes that the student requires help and is easily and mimics s.

The recommended program also does not provide the student with the necessary adult support during lunch. Accordingly, the CSE’s recommendation was inappropriate.

Having determined that the DOE has not provided a FAPE to the student during the 2010-11 school year, I must now consider whether the parents have met their burden of proving that the services provided to the student by the Program at during that school year were appropriate.

A board of education may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private educational services obtained for a student by his or her parents, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parent were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parents’ claim (Sch. Comm. Of Burlington v. Dep’t of Ed., 471 U.S. 359 [1985]; Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]). Congress intended retroactive reimbursement to parents by school officials as an available remedy in a proper case under the IDEA (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370-71); Gagliardo, 489 F. 3d. at 111). “Reimbursement merely requires [a district] to belatedly pay expenses that it should have paid all along and would have borne in the first instance “had it offered the student a FAPE” (Burlington, 471 US at 370-71). The private school need not employ certified education teachers or have its own IEP for the student (Application of a Child with a Disability, App. No. 9420). Parents who unilaterally place their child in a private school are not held as strictly as a board of education is to the requirement that each child with a disability be placed in the least restrictive environment (M.S. v. Bd. Of Ed, 231 F.3d 96 [2d Cir. 2000]; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 05-075; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-028).

The restrictiveness of the parental placement may be considered in determining whether the parents are entitled to an award of tuition reimbursement (M.S. v. Bd. Of Ed., 231 F.3d at 105; the test for a parental placement is that it is appropriate, not that it is perfect (Warren G. V. Cumberland Co. Sch. Dist., 190 F.3d 80, 84(3 Cir. 1999). The parent presented credible testimony and documentary evidence that the Program is meeting the student’s education needs, which include providing him with supports that are designed to address his , and needs. The parents presented evidence of the student’s academic, - progress. The District did not present any witnesses or evidence to contradict any of the statements of the parents or their witnesses. The parent prevails on the second criterion.

On the third criterion, the IDEA allows that tuition reimbursement may be reduced or denied when parents fail to raise the appropriateness of an IEP in a timely manner, fail to make their child available for evaluation by the district, or upon a finding of unreasonableness with respect to the actions taken by the parents. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(iii). With respect to a parents’ obligation to raise the appropriateness of an IEP in a timely manner, the IDEA provides that tuition reimbursement may be denied or reduced, if notwithstanding their being advised that they should do so, parents neither inform the CSE of their disagreement with its proposed placement and their intent to place their child in a private school at public expense at the most recent CSE meeting prior to their removal of the child from public school, nor provide the District with written notice of such information ten business days before such removal, and a reduction or denial of reimbursement is discretionary. 20 U.S.C § 1412(a)(10)(C)(iii)(I) and 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(C)(iv)(IV), Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04071.

Here, there is no evidence suggesting that the parent acted in an inappropriate manner in connection with the process. The parent visited the recommended placement twice and requested class profiles and additional information regarding the students that would be in her son’s class on more than one occasion, and she remained open to considering other CSE recommended programs (Exhs. D, E). The parent notified the DOE in a timely manner regarding the inappropriateness of the IEP. The parents are awarded tuition payment for secular portion of The Program at the for the 2010-2011 school year. Connors v. Mills, 34 F.3d 476 (2002).

The class schedule provided by the parents (Exh. F) identifies the hours of attendance from Monday to Thursday as 9-4:10 which is 7 hours and 10 minutes of which 2 hours and 20 minutes is deemed to be for religious study. The Friday schedule is from 9-12:50, 3 hours and 50 minutes of which 1 hour and 30 minutes is deemed devoted to religious instruction. Furthermore, the hour of and therapy session and 30 minute therapy sessions should be deducted due to the fact that they are paid for by the school district of location. Based on the days school is actually in session, and the days the student actually attended, the DOE shall pay the percentage of tuition that reflects the secular number of hours of the program minus the 1 ½ hours per week for and therapies.

ORDERED, the Department of Education failed to offer the student a free appropriate public education for the 2010-2011 school year.

ORDERED, the Department of Education is to reimburse the secular portion of the student’s tuition as previously described, at the Program at for the 2010-2011 school year;

ORDERED, the Department of Education shall reimburse the parents within 15 days of the parents’ submission of proof of payment and of the record of the days the school was in session and the student’s attendance record during that time period;

ORDERED, the Department of Education shall provide transportation costs to and from the Program. Dated: August 22, 2011

______________________________

VERONICA C. ODOM, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

VCO:nn

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

Within 35 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to appeal the decision to the State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

“The notice of intention to seek review shall be served upon the school district not less than 10 days before service of a copy of the petition for review upon such school district, and within 25 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. The petition for review shall be served upon the school district within 35 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. If the decision has been served by mail upon petitioner, the date of mailing and the four days subsequent thereto shall be excluded in computing the 25- or 35-day period.”

(8NYCRR279.2[b]) Failure to file the notice of intention to seek review is a waiver of the right to appeal this decision.

Directions and sample forms for filing an appeal are included with this decision. Directions and forms can also be found in the Office of State Review website: www.sro.nysed.gov/appeals.htm.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON FEBRUARY 8, 2011

PARENT

A Unappealed IHO decision of , dated 8-16-10, 34 pages B Hearing Request, dated 9-22-10, 2 pages C Amended Request, dated 11-18-10, 3 pages D Parent letter to Dr. , dated 7-15-10, 2 pages E Parent letter to Ms. , undated, 2 pages

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

1 Resolution session, dated 10-6-10, 1 page 2 Notice of Scheduled Resolution Meeting, dated 9-28-10, 4 pages 3 CSE Response to Parent Letter, dated 8-5-10, 1 page 4 Region 4 Conference Agenda Sheet, dated 5-26-10, 2 pages 5 CSE IEP, dated 5-26-10, 15 pages 6 Notice of the IEP, dated 5-4-10, 1 page 7 Unidentified, dated 4-26-10, 1 page 8 Teacher Report, April 2010, 3 pages 9 Therapy Progress Report Annual Review, dated 4-18-10, 1 page 10 Therapy Annual Review, dated 12-21-09, 2 pages 11 Final Notice of Recommendation, dated 6-7-10, 1 page

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON MARCH 28, 2011

PARENT

F Class Schedule 2010-2011, 1 page G Tuition Contract 2010-2011 dated 08/23/2010, 2 pages H Affidavit of Payment from dated 03/22/2011